Department of Business Lawhttp://hdl.handle.net/10211.2/3522
Faculty Publications and Research

2019-03-21T18:18:01ZAcme electronicshttp://hdl.handle.net/10211.2/3556
Acme electronics
Docan, Carol A.; Gunther, Richard; Rymsza, Leonard
The primary subject matter of this case concerns business law and statistical analysis.
Secondary issues examine negligence vs. negligence per se; cause in fact; contributory vs.
comparative negligence; statute of limitations; and statistical analysis involving proportions and
expected value. The case also presents strategic thinking and ethical issues related to business
conduct and their affects on consumers.
The case has a difficulty of level three, appropriate for junior level courses. The case is
intended to be taught in three class hours, including a class presentation by student teams. The case
is expected to require a minimum of three hours of outside preparation by student teams that present
a report.
This case is designed for use in an upper division inter-disciplinary business course. The
purpose of the course is to enable students to utilize knowledge they have gained in their lower
division core business courses that include one business law course and one statistics course.
However, the case can be easily modified for use as an in class or take-home assignment in an
introductory business law course by eliminating the Case B Questions on statistics.
2009-01-01T00:00:00ZA day at the movieshttp://hdl.handle.net/10211.2/3555
A day at the movies
Docan, Carol A.; Rymsza, Leonard; Baum, Paul
The primary subject matter of this case concerns business law and statistical analysis.
Secondary issues examine contract formation, terms of an agreement, breach of contract,
misrepresentation and legal remedies, as well as ethical issues related to business conduct affecting
consumers and statistical analysis involving hypothesis testing which may lead to alternate business
decisions.
The case has a difficulty of level three, appropriate for junior level courses. The case is
designed to be taught in three class hours, including a class presentation by student teams. The case
is expected to require a minimum of three hours of outside preparation by student teams that present
a report.
2004-01-01T00:00:00ZAre foreign companies doing business in the United States required to comply with American employment discrimination laws?http://hdl.handle.net/10211.2/3536
Are foreign companies doing business in the United States required to comply with American employment discrimination laws?
Docan, Carol A.
In June 1982 the United States Supreme Court decided that a New York
incorporated subsidiary of a Japanese company could not invoke the terms of a
1953 U.S.-Japan Treaty, to defend an action filed against it by female employees
who alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and national origin in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision is an important one because it
not only affects the over 1.6 million workers in the U.S. who are employed by U.S.
affiliates of foreign corporations, it may also affect future foreign investment in the
United States generally.
Foreign investment has grown rapidly in the United States in recent years.I n
1981 foreign direct investment in the U. S. increased 58% from that of 1980, with a
total of $19.29 billion spent to acquire or establish business in America.1 Those
investments were found in manufacturing, mining, wholesale and retail trades,
finance, banking, insurance, real estate, oil and gas extraction, and chemical and
allied products. The major foreign investors in 1980 were from Canada, France,
Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and West Germany. The
decision in this case is important because approximately 47 nations have entered
into Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Treaties (hereinafter referred to as
"FCN treaties") with the United States which contain language similar to that of
the Japanese Treaty.2
This article will review the facts and issues raised by recent cases which have
interpreted the Japanese Treaty in light of Title VII, discuss unresolved issues and
raise questions to consider.
1984-01-01T00:00:00ZRisk and responsibility: the working women makes the choice, not the employerhttp://hdl.handle.net/10211.2/3518
Risk and responsibility: the working women makes the choice, not the employer
Docan, Carol A.
In a case commonly known as "Johnson Controls, "an
employer had established a policy of refusing to employ fertile
females in jobs which would expose them to lead. A federal
appellate court upheld the company's Fetal Protection Plan but a state court found the plan unlawful. While the case against Johnson Controls was making its way
through the court system, many people speculated that when the
case reached the Supreme Court women· would be on the losing end
of the decision. These speculations were based on the court's shift, in the last few years, to a conservative philosophy as a result of the appointments made by Presidents Reagan and Bush to the court. Justice Souter, President Bush's most recent appointee had only
been on the bench one day when the case was argued before the
Supreme Court in October 1990. But in March 1991, much to the
surprise of all concerned, the court issued an opinion which
declared that employers may not exclude women from jobs which
could expose a fetus to toxic substances.
1991-01-01T00:00:00Z